Reading mode: Light Dark

100-400@400 vs 70-200+TC2x@400 wideopen

Go to last post
A

Anthony Wang

Active member
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
Location
Munich, DE
Hi guys,

I've compared my own 100-400/f5.6 @ 400/f5.6 to a 70-200/f2.8IS with Kenko Pro300 TC2x and Canon MkII TC2x and the result is -at least with those I tested- very obviously. The 100-400@400/f5.6 is nothing as sharp as the 70-200+TC2x@400/f5.6! While the Kenko shows some blur towards the corner, the Canon is sharp wideopen!

When comparing the photos (w/ D60) under 100% magnification and apply the same amount of USM under Photoshop 6 (80%, radius 0.8, threshold 0), those with from the 70-200x2 show up immediately sharp but the blur characteristic of the 100-400@400 make sharpening ineffective!

It's possible that those ones (100-400) I tested having particular problems but after testing 2 different (214596/245916) ones it seems that it's typical for the 100-400zoom.

Anyway I have given back the 100-400IS and use now extensively the 70-200IS+TC2x.

How is your experiences?
--
Anthony
 
Anthony

do a search. This comparison has been done several times and so far yours is the first one where the 2x wins. Generally the 100-400 comes out better as far as i remember and it just makes sense. Maybe your 100-400 wasnt good to begin with.

--
Michael Salzlechner
StarZen Digital Imaging
http://www.starzen.com/imaging
 
Hi Jeffrey,

I know about the article which was the reason why I first bought the 100-400. After a while I was wondering about the blur I always have at 400f5.6 and decide to do Resolution test with USAF1957.

The test (all tripod shoot) shows that @400f5.6 or even stopped down to f8/f11 the blur has not gone away. I showed this to my dealer and he agreed to give me another 100-400 (serial number around 10,000 later to the 1st one). This exemplar has a better contrast but the blur is still there. Applying USM did not help at all.

Now since the 70-200IS has come out I had the ide to test it with the 2x Kenko Pro300 and the result is as I did tell you: must better contrast and sharpness at 400f5.6.

So I gave back the 100-400 and use now the 70-200+TC2x. It will give me more versatility: if I need to shoot low light (indoor sport/performance show) then no converter, if shooting birds I will use it with the 2x.

Rgds
Jeffrey Lazo said:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml
--
--
Jeffrey Lazo
-Check out my D60 Galleries-
http://homepage.mac.com/lazoj
-Gallery listing-
http://homepage.mac.com/lazoj/lenses/galleries.html
-Newbie Lens Information/Prices -
http://homepage.mac.com/lazoj/lenses/lenses.html
Click to expand...
--
Anthony
 
I have come across the, to me, very unexpected, issue of sharp center and fuzzy corners with the Canon 2x. Considering the 1.6x crop factor I feel that Canon (and others?) have to do a lot more development work on the 2x extenders. My logic is this: the original lens, designed for a 24x36 frame, has to only fill a D60 frame 15x22mm, or off-axis up to, say, 12mm. In my own chart tests with 5 lenses I have found very little difference between 12mm off-axis compared to the center (without any extenders). People have reported that the 1.4x also shows the same, yet invariably the 2x shows a significant deteoration in even the D60 corners wide open. It should not. Now it's covering only up to 6mm off-axis (think of it as an angle in radians, to get my meaning) even though with our looking at the resolution with twice as much criticism. But I am alluding to the RELATIVE sharpness of corner to center. Hence my belief in that the 2x extenders are the culprits, not the lenses. Problem could be that the extender design has to be such that the combo still has to focus at infinity at exactly the same back-focus as the naked lens. In astronomical use one changes magnification all the time, simply by swopping barlows or eyepieces for eye-piece projection, but the back focus is a nonissue. You simply refocus. And, as expected, the problem of center vs edge relative resolution deminishes with greater magnification. It does not seem to worsen, like for the camera 2x extenders. It's interesting to note that Luminous Landscape compared the new to old Canon 2x extenders on film, rather than on a D60.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/c-ext.shtml

Perhaps the new one is a lot superior on a D60 corner? The LL comparison of the 100 to 400 to the 80 to 200 zooms shows edge definition (the windows). Your test refers to the central definition being superior in the shorter zoom. Quite possibly you are both right.
 
Samir Kharusi said:
I have come across the, to me, very unexpected, issue of sharp
center and fuzzy corners with the Canon 2x. Considering the 1.6x
crop factor I feel that Canon (and others?) have to do a lot more
development work on the 2x extenders. My logic is this: the
original lens, designed for a 24x36 frame, has to only fill a D60
frame 15x22mm, or off-axis up to, say, 12mm. In my own chart tests
with 5 lenses I have found very little difference between 12mm
off-axis compared to the center (without any extenders). People
have reported that the 1.4x also shows the same, yet invariably the
2x shows a significant deteoration in even the D60 corners wide
open. It should not. Now it's covering only up to 6mm off-axis
(think of it as an angle in radians, to get my meaning) even though
with our looking at the resolution with twice as much criticism.
But I am alluding to the RELATIVE sharpness of corner to center.
Hence my belief in that the 2x extenders are the culprits, not the
lenses. Problem could be that the extender design has to be such
that the combo still has to focus at infinity at exactly the same
back-focus as the naked lens. In astronomical use one changes
magnification all the time, simply by swopping barlows or eyepieces
for eye-piece projection, but the back focus is a nonissue. You
simply refocus. And, as expected, the problem of center vs edge
relative resolution deminishes with greater magnification. It does
not seem to worsen, like for the camera 2x extenders. It's
interesting to note that Luminous Landscape compared the new to old
Canon 2x extenders on film, rather than on a D60.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/c-ext.shtml
Perhaps the new one is a lot superior on a D60 corner?
Click to expand...
Mine wasn't, in fact it has so far beat the hell out of THREE 1.4x samples I've owned.
Samir Kharusi said:
The LL comparison of the 100 to 400 to the 80 to 200 zooms shows > edge
definition (the windows). Your test refers to the central
definition being superior in the shorter zoom. Quite possibly you
are both right.
Click to expand...
Canon 2x vs. Kenko TelePlus Pro:
http://www.pbase.com/hyperfish/teleconvertor_comparison
 
Anthony Wang said:
Hi guys,

I've compared my own 100-400/f5.6 @ 400/f5.6 to a 70-200/f2.8IS
with Kenko Pro300 TC2x and Canon MkII TC2x and the result is -at
least with those I tested- very obviously. The 100-400@400/f5.6 is
nothing as sharp as the 70-200+TC2x@400/f5.6! While the Kenko shows
some blur towards the corner, the Canon is sharp wideopen!

When comparing the photos (w/ D60) under 100% magnification and
apply the same amount of USM under Photoshop 6 (80%, radius 0.8,
threshold 0), those with from the 70-200x2 show up immediately
sharp but the blur characteristic of the 100-400@400 make
sharpening ineffective!

It's possible that those ones (100-400) I tested having particular
problems but after testing 2 different (214596/245916) ones it
seems that it's typical for the 100-400zoom.

Anyway I have given back the 100-400IS and use now extensively the
70-200IS+TC2x.

How is your experiences?
--
Click to expand...
Same as yours. THREE 100-400 samples, ALL were clearly beaten by my 70-200mm f/2.8 non IS 2x Kenko TelePlus Pro.

BUT

It's very possible we have extremely good 70-200mm samples, also extremely good 2x samples...
 
Did you have any three dimensionality in your test targets
to check if the focus was accurate?
If not then the test may be worthless (for me at least).

Vesa
 
Hi,

the focusing was absolut ok on the 100-400. The first lens was very soft equally middle to corner while the 2nd had the lower right corner sharp but the remaining part are blurred. The blurr has a very strange characteristic which looks like a motion blur on the vertical direction. Note that there was no motion at all because the lower right was sharp.

It seems that the optical axis of the 100-400 lenses does deviate from the center @400. From 100-300 were everything ok.
vpera said:
Did you have any three dimensionality in your test targets
to check if the focus was accurate?
If not then the test may be worthless (for me at least).

Vesa
Click to expand...
--
Anthony
 
Did you turn IS off on the 100-400?
Anthony Wang said:
Hi guys,

I've compared my own 100-400/f5.6 @ 400/f5.6 to a 70-200/f2.8IS
with Kenko Pro300 TC2x and Canon MkII TC2x and the result is -at
least with those I tested- very obviously. The 100-400@400/f5.6 is
nothing as sharp as the 70-200+TC2x@400/f5.6! While the Kenko shows
some blur towards the corner, the Canon is sharp wideopen!

When comparing the photos (w/ D60) under 100% magnification and
apply the same amount of USM under Photoshop 6 (80%, radius 0.8,
threshold 0), those with from the 70-200x2 show up immediately
sharp but the blur characteristic of the 100-400@400 make
sharpening ineffective!

It's possible that those ones (100-400) I tested having particular
problems but after testing 2 different (214596/245916) ones it
seems that it's typical for the 100-400zoom.

Anyway I have given back the 100-400IS and use now extensively the
70-200IS+TC2x.

How is your experiences?
--
Anthony
Click to expand...
--
Cheers,

Stuart Rider.
 
Anthony Wang said:
Hi,

the focusing was absolut ok on the 100-400.
Click to expand...
You may be right, but how did you confirm that?
You can't trust AF or the viewfinder. Only the image at 100%
and some 3-d detail in it will tell.
Anthony Wang said:
very strange characteristic which looks like a motion blur on the
vertical direction. Note that there was no motion at all because
the lower right was sharp.
Click to expand...
I guess you had IS switched off? And was the test target
parallel to the film plane. At 4 meters distance I can see differencies
in sharpness if the distance varies 1-2cm (less than an inch).
How far was your test target?

I'm not saying your results are wrong. Without knowing the
test method and seeing the test being done I have to doubt ;-).

Vesa
 
With a teleconverter, the 70-200 is f/5.6 wide open. I don't remember how the camera reports this ...
Ken
Anthony Wang said:
Hi guys,

I've compared my own 100-400/f5.6 @ 400/f5.6 to a 70-200/f2.8IS
with Kenko Pro300 TC2x and Canon MkII TC2x and the result is -at
least with those I tested- very obviously. The 100-400@400/f5.6 is
nothing as sharp as the 70-200+TC2x@400/f5.6! While the Kenko shows
some blur towards the corner, the Canon is sharp wideopen!

When comparing the photos (w/ D60) under 100% magnification and
apply the same amount of USM under Photoshop 6 (80%, radius 0.8,
threshold 0), those with from the 70-200x2 show up immediately
sharp but the blur characteristic of the 100-400@400 make
sharpening ineffective!

It's possible that those ones (100-400) I tested having particular
problems but after testing 2 different (214596/245916) ones it
seems that it's typical for the 100-400zoom.

Anyway I have given back the 100-400IS and use now extensively the
70-200IS+TC2x.

How is your experiences?
--
Anthony
Click to expand...
--

No 1D, very few lenses, no camera bag or teleconverters thanks to some thief. Also, NO Canon 1200mm f/5.6.
 
Anthony Wang said:
Hi guys,

I've compared my own 100-400/f5.6 @ 400/f5.6 to a 70-200/f2.8IS
with Kenko Pro300 TC2x and Canon MkII TC2x and the result is -at
least with those I tested- very obviously. The 100-400@400/f5.6 is
nothing as sharp as the 70-200+TC2x@400/f5.6! While the Kenko shows
some blur towards the corner, the Canon is sharp wideopen!

When comparing the photos (w/ D60) under 100% magnification and
apply the same amount of USM under Photoshop 6 (80%, radius 0.8,
threshold 0), those with from the 70-200x2 show up immediately
sharp but the blur characteristic of the 100-400@400 make
sharpening ineffective!

It's possible that those ones (100-400) I tested having particular
problems but after testing 2 different (214596/245916) ones it
seems that it's typical for the 100-400zoom.

Anyway I have given back the 100-400IS and use now extensively the
70-200IS+TC2x.

How is your experiences?
--
Anthony
Click to expand...
 
I own both the 70-200IS and 100-400IS and upon getting my 70-200 proceeded to test it with my Canon 1.4x and 2x teleconverter. My hope was that I could then sell the 100-400...No luck, in all cases using tripod, manual and AF with 3 samples each with both teleconverters, there was loss of sharpness and contrast when using the 70-200 with a tele compared with just the 100-400.

Jack

--
http://www.pbase.com/joneill
 
The poster said sharpening his 100-400 shots didn't improve anything. This is how you know something is really wrong with the lens.

Jason
Jack O'Neill said:
I own both the 70-200IS and 100-400IS and upon getting my 70-200
proceeded to test it with my Canon 1.4x and 2x teleconverter. My
hope was that I could then sell the 100-400...No luck, in all cases
using tripod, manual and AF with 3 samples each with both
teleconverters, there was loss of sharpness and contrast when using
the 70-200 with a tele compared with just the 100-400.

Jack

--
http://www.pbase.com/joneill
Click to expand...
 
I, too, own both lenses, and both TC's (the new version-II TC's).

I alos wanted to be able to ditch my 100-400 IS. But the 70-200/2.8 IS + 2x-II TC wasn't as sharp.

Granted, these weren't Kenko TC's.

But, somebody else tested Kenko TC's vs. Canon and found no difference. Others who test often find that the Canon's are better (less vignetting, primarily).
Jack O'Neill said:
I own both the 70-200IS and 100-400IS and upon getting my 70-200
proceeded to test it with my Canon 1.4x and 2x teleconverter. My
hope was that I could then sell the 100-400...No luck, in all cases
using tripod, manual and AF with 3 samples each with both
teleconverters, there was loss of sharpness and contrast when using
the 70-200 with a tele compared with just the 100-400.
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
Hi All,

thanks alot for your inputs.

Today I've just discovered something very interesting: when comparing my [email protected] I've always a filter (HOYA HMC/UV) on the 100-400 while the 70-200ISx2(Canon/Kenko)@400f5.6 did not have since my dealer had offered me the 70-200 for testing and it was not my lens.

After exchanging the 70-200 for the 100-400 ofcourse I mounted the filter on. Since I always do lens testing on ResChart to see the limit of my lenses suddenly the [email protected] is no more as sharp as I tested before. This was really chocking for me and I'm thinking about to get the 100-400 back.

But then after thinking twice I've got in mind that the 70-200 was tested the 1st time w/o filter and after removing it... it shines!

Maybe I've done unjustice to the 100-400 which may also shining @400f5.6 w/o protection filter but I've decided to keep the 70-200+TC2x since this will give me much more versatility for my shooting: nature/birds w/2xTC and indoor sports/performance w/o.

Anybody of you having the same experience with protection filter (UV)? Of course I need to be more careful of the lens as it is w/o front protection but I guest all the pros with their 300f2.8/400f4DO/600f5.6 do have the same problem w/o protection. Maybe because those lenses can not be protected that's why they're so super sharp :-)

Would be great if you can recommend any filter brand which does not cause the problem.
DavidP said:
I alos wanted to be able to ditch my 100-400 IS. But the
70-200/2.8 IS + 2x-II TC wasn't as sharp.

Granted, these weren't Kenko TC's.

But, somebody else tested Kenko TC's vs. Canon and found no
difference. Others who test often find that the Canon's are better
(less vignetting, primarily).
Jack O'Neill said:
I own both the 70-200IS and 100-400IS and upon getting my 70-200
proceeded to test it with my Canon 1.4x and 2x teleconverter. My
hope was that I could then sell the 100-400...No luck, in all cases
using tripod, manual and AF with 3 samples each with both
teleconverters, there was loss of sharpness and contrast when using
the 70-200 with a tele compared with just the 100-400.
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
Click to expand...
--
Anthony
 
you should no visible difference.
Anthony Wang said:
thanks alot for your inputs.

Today I've just discovered something very interesting: when
comparing my [email protected] I've always a filter (HOYA HMC/UV) on
the 100-400 while the 70-200ISx2(Canon/Kenko)@400f5.6 did not have
since my dealer had offered me the 70-200 for testing and it was
not my lens.

After exchanging the 70-200 for the 100-400 ofcourse I mounted the
filter on. Since I always do lens testing on ResChart to see the
limit of my lenses suddenly the [email protected] is no more as
sharp as I tested before. This was really chocking for me and I'm
thinking about to get the 100-400 back.

But then after thinking twice I've got in mind that the 70-200 was
tested the 1st time w/o filter and after removing it... it shines!

Maybe I've done unjustice to the 100-400 which may also shining
@400f5.6 w/o protection filter but I've decided to keep the
70-200+TC2x since this will give me much more versatility for my
shooting: nature/birds w/2xTC and indoor sports/performance w/o.

Anybody of you having the same experience with protection filter
(UV)? Of course I need to be more careful of the lens as it is w/o
front protection but I guest all the pros with their
300f2.8/400f4DO/600f5.6 do have the same problem w/o protection.
Maybe because those lenses can not be protected that's why they're
so super sharp :-)

Would be great if you can recommend any filter brand which does not
cause the problem.
DavidP said:
I alos wanted to be able to ditch my 100-400 IS. But the
70-200/2.8 IS + 2x-II TC wasn't as sharp.

Granted, these weren't Kenko TC's.

But, somebody else tested Kenko TC's vs. Canon and found no
difference. Others who test often find that the Canon's are better
(less vignetting, primarily).
Jack O'Neill said:
I own both the 70-200IS and 100-400IS and upon getting my 70-200
proceeded to test it with my Canon 1.4x and 2x teleconverter. My
hope was that I could then sell the 100-400...No luck, in all cases
using tripod, manual and AF with 3 samples each with both
teleconverters, there was loss of sharpness and contrast when using
the 70-200 with a tele compared with just the 100-400.
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
Click to expand...
--
Anthony
Click to expand...
 
Anthony Wang said:
[...] did not have [filter on]
since my dealer had offered me the 70-200 for testing and it was
not my lens.
Click to expand...
Glad to see you treat other people's equipment with care. :-) Just kidding.
Anthony Wang said:
Maybe I've done unjustice to the 100-400 which may also shining
@400f5.6 w/o protection filter but I've decided to keep the
70-200+TC2x since this will give me much more versatility for my
shooting: nature/birds w/2xTC and indoor sports/performance w/o.
Click to expand...
The 100-400 is a nice lens, but I imagine the 70-200 with 2x, even if slightly worse, is still awfully nice. Both should be outshone by a dedicated 400 or a 300 + 1.4x anyway.
Anthony Wang said:
Anybody of you having the same experience with protection filter
(UV)? Of course I need to be more careful of the lens as it is w/o
front protection but I guest all the pros with their
300f2.8/400f4DO/600f5.6 do have the same problem w/o protection.
Maybe because those lenses can not be protected that's why they're
so super sharp :-)

Would be great if you can recommend any filter brand which does not
cause the problem.
Click to expand...
Well, I did some initial testing when I first got my D60. At the time I had three filters: Heliopan SH-PMC, Canon, and an old Mamiya 77mm. I saw no degredation with the Heliopan, a teeny bit with the Canon, and a noticible amount (on resolution charts) with the Mamiya.

However, you can read my fairly long post here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=3006410

and see my opinions on 5 different filters. I did an image test with 4 of them and much as I wanted to make some statement, all I could come up with was that after staring back and forth between images, I could see no difference at all. None. Now that I am re-reading that test, I did use my 16-35 which isn't a very sharp lens. Perhaps my 100-400 at 100 which is my sharpest lens that takes 77mm filters.

To answer your original question, I don't have a 2x TC, but I have a 1.4x Kenko Pro300 TC. I have found that from 100-300, my 100-400 lens beats my 70-200 f/2.8 IS in sharpness. The 70-200 is close but not quite there. The 100-400 + 1.4x TC at 300 (so 420mm before the D60 factor) really beats the 70-200. Now to be fair, it looks like my 70-200 has a chromatic aberration problem that I'm trying to work out with Canon and my dealer. I'm getting non-lateral magnification effects, so this isn't the sort of thing I've seen before. So perhaps something is misaligned in the lens which may be affecting sharpness overall.

If you have a good 1.4x TC, try the 100-400 with TC at 285mm or so, and compare that to the 70-200 with 2x at 200mm. Again I don't have a 2x TC to try it with, but my 100-400 seems to be degraded very little with the 1.4x and while not bad, the lens does soften up past 300mm, so I get better results at 300 + the 1.4x. Now obviously this presents some light issues since you're past f/5.6 -- I taped the contacts and got decent results, but your milage may vary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top